"if she continues to keep the recording up on eBay she'll face six months in prison or a fine of around $283,000"

Kind of a jerk move by Clapton for the $3500, but at the same time, courts really do not like being ignored. If the court ruled that the sale is illegal and the item is still up on eBay, that additional penalty seems like kind of a different issue altogether. I feel like there must be more to this story if the CD's been sitting out there waiting to be sold all this time.

Sorry, typo in the subject, which should read "Isn't this a win for Roku?"

According to the original Axios article, the dispute is over the following terms that Roku claims Google is trying to force upon them:

• Roku said Google made demands that included requests for preferential treatment of its YouTube TV and YouTube apps.
• Specifically, the platform cited four demands from Google that it thought were anticompetitive, including Google's request for Roku to manipulate consumer search results and grant access to data not available to other companies.
• Roku also alleged that Google has tried to leverage the power of its YouTube app to force Roku to accept hardware requirements that would increase consumer costs and act in a discriminatory way against Roku.

If this is the case, doesn't adding the feature into the existing YouTube app essentially provide access to YouTube TV functionality to all of Roku's users, without Roku submitting to any of Google's requests?

Interesting study of voting processes given the large amount of data and analysis. There is sufficient information in the analysis to determine not only the most popular choice, but also who the winner would be in the absence of certain choices. In particular in the General Resolution (which contains the analysis of the results) at https://www.debian.org/vote/20... there are the "Beat Matrix" and "Pairwise Defeats" sections that can show how individual options fared against each other.

Options 5 and 6 (the two options in support for Stallman) both lose in every pairwise combination, so those are omitted from the Pair-wise defeats section.

As stated in the article, option 7 (no statement) defeats all the other options in pairwise combinations.

Option 2 (call for resignation) defeats all the other options except for option 7, where it is defeated by a margin of 8 votes.

After that, the preferences are a bit less clear. Like option 4 (call on board to improve governance) defeats option 1 (call for board removal), however option 1 defeats option 3 (discourage collaboration while Stallman is in place).

S-1 filings, in particular, tend to have wording like this for all types of businesses going IPO that paint the impression that the business might fail at any moment.

For example, when Visa (the credit card processor) filed their S-1 in 2007, it was full of grave existential risks like:

"If Visa U.S.A. or Visa International is found liable in certain other lawsuits that have been brought against them or if we are found liable in other litigation to which we may become subject in the future, we may be forced to pay substantial damages and/or change our business practices or pricing structure, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, revenues and profitability."

"Our management team is new and does not have a history of working together."

"Our recent reorganization will require us to make significant changes to our culture and business operations. If we fail to make this transition successfully, our business could be materially and adversely affected."

"Existing and proposed regulation in the areas of consumer privacy and data use and security could decrease the number of payment cards issued, our payments volume and revenues."

They're generally written to cover both real insider concerns and imaginary outsider concerns based on public perception, since disclosure here prevents potential lawsuits from proceeding. Largely speaking, you can expect these filing risks to be a mirror of any random risk being mentioned publicly, and not necessarily represent an independent acknowledgement of whether insiders believe they are real or likely.

After finishing the article, it seems that the whole narrative is driven forward by a single key difference in fee structure between a refund and a chargeback.

It is stated that a customer-initiated chargeback (for any reason) costs the merchant $15. As a result, they are in a race against time to refund all of the charges. That seems to imply that the cost of a refund is much less than $15. Given how quickly and decisively they choose to act, it seems that the refund fee may be as little as $0 and thus worth doing as quickly as possible within the time frame. The idea that they might refund some non-fraudulent donations doesn't seem to cross their minds at all.

I agree. If you click through to the linked articles going back to the original Japanese media reports, the claim is specifically that the images used were selfies posted to social media, which the perpetrator then compared against Google Street View. The selfie claim makes sense on one part, because management companies for Japanese idols are protective of high-resolution images and don't use high-res images for promotion, plus it also makes no sense for a pro-photoshoot to occur in front of a performer's home. However, since selfie cameras are typically lower resolution than back-cameras, and images posted to most social media platforms will be downsampled by the service itself, I think we should be skeptical of the overall claim of identification. The popularity of selfies makes this kind of story more potentially viral, which I think adds to the risk of nonsense hysteria.

In 2000, American Airlines rolled out their "more room throughout coach" program, in contrast to United's "Economy Plus" for frequent-fliers only. Did casual fliers flock to American as a result of the increased legroom? No, they did not. Today, American's program is quite similar to United's, plus it's possible to buy the extra legroom under both programs.

Casual fliers seem to want cheap fares above all. If you look at EasyJet or RyanAir in Europe, it seems like fliers relish the prospect of cheap flights above all other contortions to lower the cost of the offering.

I've just spent the last 5 days coordinating a trade show, messaging like mad across iMessage, Hangouts, and e-mail, both from inside the apps and from the home screen. The problems described simply do not occur on my phone. I'm not sure why, but maybe the situation is just not as bad as this reviewer describes and the problem does not afflict every phone equally.

Well, that quote is accurate, but requires further explanation. When we say "lower court was simply incorrect", the use of the passive voice doesn't indicate what was incorrect. For what is described, what is incorrect is not the binary decision of whether the plaintiff or defendant should prevail, but rather some point of law that was used to make that decision. For example, in the recent Texas death-row case, the Supreme court found that the appeals court didn't use the correct criteria in their judgement and told them to redo it with better criteria.

The simplistic case would be something like: "you read that word wrong in the law, read it more carefully and try it again".

So yes, the article is accurate in that when the point a "simple" error, they correct the error and send it back to the lower court to be retried. The cases that SCOTUS tends to actually take and decide on their own is when it can't be sent back. For instance, if multiple appellate courts have come to different decisions on the same issue. There are numerous cases that have frustrated individuals because they thought they had some kind of game-changing case, but it wasn't controversial or common enough to reach SCOTUS. Then the ruling ends up standing only for a region, and then other test cases need to come up in other regions until there is a conflict.

If all the regions that a given issue is litigated in turn out to agree (which is common case, since most cases are mundane rather than controversial), then the point in question would not even need to reach the supreme court to become the law of the land.

I'm going to preface this bit of advice under the presumption that when you state that you're a CS major, that you are differentiated from the typical IT major in that you understand the following:

1. * Not only what a Universal Turing Machine is, but also why it's not just an information processing machine but every information processing machine
2. * Not only that the proof of the Halting problem means that you cannot write a program that can fully debug other programs, but reason about what kinds of bugs can be detected by programs and what value such programs may provide

If this is the case, I would propose that you have 2 fundamental directions to choose from: whether you want your career to be based on technical contribution or business contribution. Both will involve apply your technical abilities, but you'll get visibility into different areas. This also isn't to say that your decision will be set in stone forever, but there will be discrete points in your career for you to choose to make switches or fine tune, and you'll progress faster if you can make a definitive decision on where to start so that you can start building.

Down the technical path, you want to look for a software developer position at a company whose core business is software and will establish your resume as a "real" programmer (as opposed to a copy-paste imposter). Get yourself in at Google and you can write your own ticket for the next decade. A friend of mine started at google, is now working as software developer at a pretty sweet startup that just went IPO, but, more importantly, is also one of the privileged people who has a direct line to the CEO of the company and is one of the key influential technical advisors to the company, even though they code as the primary part of their job. Challenge yourself to aim high, don't be afraid of being rejected at an interview. I have another friend who was initially rejected at Google, but was persistent, the recruiter got them an interview with a different org, and was hired.

Down the business path, look at consulting positions. Genuine consulting positions where you are flown out to clients to do development work, not where you are doing outsourced or in-sourced development at a fixed location. The travel is key, the cost of your travel is the signal that you are important; don't be fooled by claims of "work-life balance". If travel is a problem for you, go down the technical path. This will give you broad visibility into how technology is mapped to business problems, and open the door to a whole hidden universe of computing. The programming challenges will not be as mathematically interesting as in the technical path, but you'll be exposed to a lot of interesting and complex business problems. As the genuine CS guy, you'll be of unusual value to your firm. You'll be able to measure this concretely in that while you might initially need to travel to the same place over and over again for multi-month periods of time, you'll start traveling to more different places more frequently as an indication that your skills are valuable and rare, too rare to be locked up in a single project for a long period of time. This is accelerate your learning on the business side since you'll be able to ask questions to more different people and experience more different industries.

I might go a bit against the grain here, in saying that at this stage in your career, the money is not the biggest issue. You need to look at your first job in terms of the opportunities it opens for you for future jobs, and not so much in the immediate income. What's most important is getting yourself on a career path that has the steepest possible growth curve, rather than the highest starting point.

Just my 2 cents...

I know everyone loves to hate on Java and Oracle, but my understanding is that in order to access the licensed features, you have to deliberately add the command line arg "-XX:+UnlockCommercialFeatures". It doesn't seem like rocket science what this might mean...

Is not the genius required to keep existing infrastructure stable and feed the pace of technological advancement enough?

Have we become so jaded to the incredibly fast rate of advancement that the everyday heroes who make this happen are not enough?

Are we so self-centered in the wealthy developed parts of the world that we can't see the benefits that the rapid decrease in the cost of anything less than the absolute cutting edge have brought to poorer parts of the world?

So we've got some politicians in the pocket of one camp, and others in the pocket of a different camp. The law is written so that when there is sufficient public interest, the issue goes to a vote, providing a timely and final route forward.

Is that a problem?

It was pretty darn hard to parse that article to understand what library the author was talking about, but after some research, the issue seems to be a vulnerability in the Apache Commons Collections library.

I don't understand why the OP calls it "Java commons" or why the author of the article goes out of his way to not mention the name "Apache", using it only when copying and pasting code lines but never stating it in prose. Sure, there are lots of people who may have Java, but if the security vulnerability is of the magnitude that is claimed, properly identifying where it is located would be the logical first step.

There is a somewhat better article at InfoQ.com that parses out the original article and describes it more clearly.